I think a lot of Ubuntu and GNOME3 users would be much, much, happier if you were right. Both Unity and GNOME3 have tried to re-invent the desktop, but neither really have been successful.
Neither are a 2000s museum. But both could learn a lot from what Microsoft is doing - this should not be written as an endorsement of anyone deciding that the next GNU/Linux Desktop should be a clone of Windows, there's a difference between learning from and copying..
It's actually very easy, I've done it. It's just not something anyone does because of two factors:
1. Desktops always look a little odd when encapsulated inside of a window. Think VLC or VirtualBox/etc.
2. Aero isn't a touch Interface, and all web development has been going towards UIs that work well on both touch and desktop systems.
And that latter is also why Windows 10 looks the way it does. Which is also why it looks like the web enough for you to think they're replicating what looks good on the web - they're trying to do the same thing.
Millions of drone operators? I think that's a little generous.
What? People have been flying remote control hobby aircraft for well over half a century. And between companies like Blade and DJI alone, people are buying over 200,000 of the devices per month.
There's a always a risk a drone will fall out of the sky conk someone on the head.
Yup, and indeed there have been a handful of minor injuries along those lines. Statistically what amounts to zero, of course, compared to the number of people who are actually killed attending motor sports events as spectators, or while skiing, or while commuting to work... or while flying as actual licensed pilots in vehicles excrutiatingly regulated in their form, maintenance, and use by the federal government.
I think the best way to handle the drone situation is to requirement to carry a light and transmitter as well as obey automated instructions to avoid areas (basically a flight unit with a GPS can be set to have "no-go" areas).
Or, people could simply follow existing laws, and stay under 400', away from airports, and use a simple app on their phone to be made aware of FAA NOTAMs so they no when specific areas are off limits. And people who don't care about laws and rules? You're not going to be able to do anything about them (unless you can catch them after the fact of having done something stupid) than you are about people who illegally parachute off of tall buildings, or illegally drive their ATV off-road in parks, or operate their boats too fast in a no-wake zone.
Drone owners are idiots.
Really? There are literally millions of them. Are all of them idiots? People driving cars have a wildly worse track record when it comes to deaths. For that matter, licensed media helicopter pilots have caused more deaths. and there are merely thousands of them, not millions. What's your point?
What's it going to take before these idiot drone operators come to their senses?
Yeah! And what's it going to take before these idiots who start the fires in the first place come to their senses! We should definitely regulate matches, hot catalytic converters, hibachis, and magnifying glasses. Oh, right, it's already against the law to start wildfires. Just like it's already against the law to interfere with firefighting operations. We don't need new regulations (since that won't stop idiots from being idiots anyway) - we need substantial penalties for being a jackass. Like we already have. Enforce the laws we've got, problem will be reduced as much as it can be.
Requiring a modified version is not banning the game.
If you enforce it by banning the game until it's modified, then yes, it is. By definition.
Can you get the game now? No? Then it's banned.
This is slashdot. If Apple gave everyone in the would an ice-cream, people here would find some reason to hate them for it.
I'm not talking about just Slashdot.
No, it was put up as a big fuck you to the rest of the country. SC put it up in the early 1960s to protest civil rights. It wasn't up before then.
In the early 2000s, it was superficially moved to a cemetery in front of the Capitol, but that was a "compromise", and was the moving of the flag, not a removal.
The Bush/Gore case was, I think, the most legally flawed SCOTUS decision of the past 25 years.
Why? All they did was stop Gore from employing cherry-picking and capricious unequal-protection-under-the-law methods to spin a manual count his way, something a politicized Florida court was trying to help him do. Putting a stop to that is exactly the sort of thing the SC is supposed to do, because that sort of behavior at the state court level is counter-constitutional.
This current ruling is, you're right, deeply flawed. Because it's very clear that the language in question was deliberate, and that the one-party legislative action that rammed the law through didn't contemplate the prospect of a number of states standing up to them and refusing to play ball. As Gruber pointed out, the wording of the law was intentionally meant to strong-arm the states, to essentially extort their participation in the absurd manifestation of that legislative train wreck. This was an opportunity to trash it and start over with a law that wasn't based on lies, sold with lies, and which resulted in essentially the opposite of everything its con-artist cheerleaders promised.
Well, it is banning the game (from the App Store) if Apple removes it from the App Store. The fact you can modify it and get your modified version put up doesn't mean you don't suffer harm in the meantime.
And the modification you're having to do is also absurd. What are you going to use to represent Confederates in battle other than a Confederate battle flag?
I'm not finding a lot of support for Apple's position at the moment. Apple's actions, if anything, undermine the more serious reasons to call on the government of a US state to stop using it. Suddenly a call for a US state to show humanity and stop being dicks is turned into a de-facto nationwide ban on controversial symbols. Not good.
Yeah well, I'm still not buying it, I must prefer the dual band one I have which is guaranteed not to radiate asbestos on the 2.4GHz frequency.
I think a part of it is a misunderstanding on the part of some of the companies pulling flags from their shelves.
The outrage over the flag wasn't that the flag itself exists. It was that a State of the United States of America had it flying over or in front of their capitol building, and worse still than that, was doing it as a "Fuck you" to the rest of the country for "imposing" civil rights on it.
Given the fact it's suddenly high profile, I can certainly see some manager walking through BigboxMart looking at their shelves and seeing bumper stickers or even the flags themselves, and saying "Do we really want to be the people selling these?"
But... to go further, and start banning anything with the flag in or on it, regardless of context, shows businesses have forgotten what the controversy was in the first place.
I think it's a kneejerk reaction, to something in the news, and kneejerk reactions are usually pretty bad. Of course, my kneejerk reaction is what I'm writing here, so for all I know, I'm about to find my position is ridiculous too.
I think this story is a little more nuanced than that to be honest.
Apple, eBay, et al, obviously have the right to sell whatever they want, and if they don't want to sell a flag representing treason and racism, then that's fine and their right, of course.
1. Apple is going a tad overboard here. For example, they're banning Civil War games, because those games have Confederate Flags in them. I'm confused as to what Apple thinks its doing by banning those games.
2. There's a difference between, say, a State, like South Carolina, flying a flag that essentially says "Fuck Black people" either over its State House, or more recently, in front of it, and someone, that is, a person, not a government, be they... a little ill-informed, or an outright racist, buying it to express their own views, for some aesthetic reason, ironically, or whatever.
I would rather the companies currently rushing to ban it step back for a moment and think their policies through. What are they trying to achieve? What products do they have that actually portray the flag and in what context are those flags portrayed? Is banning all of them the right way forward?
(Large wall of text comprising of quoting me and then adding "LULZ" or some other generic non-contributory comment removed. But you're not shitposting are you.)
I wish we could have an adult discussion of gender issues in tech, if not here than somewhere. But we cannot, because your side has already decided the answers and will shout down anyone who disputes them.
No, no, we haven't. Even if we had, what possible point is there in shouting down all discussion of gender in tech, of demanding Slashdot ban discussions of it?
But we cannot, because your side has already decided the answers and will shout down anyone who disputes them. You throw poo about "brogrammers" and "toxic masculinity".
Nope, I don't. Not to people who want to seriously discuss the issues. I've called (as I did above) groups who deliberately shitpost and demand Slashdot ban articles on sexism names, but, why would those people be deserving of respect?
And something tells me that the very fact you'd use the words "toxic masculinity" as something that apparently I (who has never used that term) are using the shutdown debate means you've heard some third hand version of what it means, but have actually no idea what it means.
Not that I necessarily am unsympathetic. To tell the truth, a lot of the jargon used by academic feminists, from TM to privilege and even to "sexism" (which is used in a slightly different way to how most of us use it) is confusing, awkward, and frequently likely to be misinterpreted. But at the same time, the ideas they're referring to need labels. It's just a shame someone takes, say "TM", thinks it means men are toxic, and then promptly shits all over a discussion trying to deal with under-representation of women in the workforce where the term hasn't even been used because "TM" was somehow an insult to them, and it must have been made by "Feminazis", and "Feminazis" want women to have better opportunities, and therefore you an enemy of women having better opportunities.
Funny how that works. Almost like the jackass who used that term in front of you (because, let's be honest, you didn't hear it from Anita Sarkeesian or, for that matter, Joss Whedon: you heard it from another fellow
You claim atrocities and if other people (men or women) say they've never seen such, you make the unfalsifiable claim they happen constantly behind their back. You alternate between claiming men and women are the same (and therefore there should be 50% representation in tech) and that they are different and need to be treated differently. You insist that certain feminist views be accepted as axioms without or in spite of evidence. And if people insist on arguing against your point of view you call them horrible misogynists and claim they personally are part of the problem.
I honestly don't know what you're talking about. It sounds like some dumbass comments suggesting the massive harassment campaigns against women in tech aren't happening, despite being rather obviously visible. And you're putting other words into my mouth, which again sound less like even something those awful, awful, SJWs, say, and more like what people in
Do you realize what
Slashdot's approach to moderation simply prevents your side from effectively censoring discussion through sock-puppeting as you would at a site where everyone gets a vote.
No, Slashdot's approach is preventing any discussion from occurring at all. Almost every post that's modded up here is Off Topic. There is virtually no discussion of the issues raised by the program described. That's been the case the last few articles too. Viewing at -1? Not an option, because that's flooded with more crap.
As for "My side". There's people here who want to discuss the issue - and people who want Slashdot to stop posting articles concerning diversity. That's it. I think it's quite legitimate for us in the former group to ask the latter group to get knotted.
If you don't like posts about diversity, ignore them. Crapflooding and shitposting and abusing moderation privileges to ensure anyone trying to discuss the issue has their post buried at a low score amongst piles of crap, are not the acts of reasonable people. They're the acts of thugs, of gutless spineless wimps too afraid to hear things they've been told are scary.
Oh right, the age-old gambit of "let's moderate dissent away"
No, I was describing the age-old gambit of "shout down people we don't want people to listen to", and asking how it can solved.
Dissent? No. We're not having a discussion on Slashdot here about whether this will help women, or help the tech industry. We're just having the usual suspects demanding Slashdot ban discussion of the topic, together with some weird posts complaining about discrimination against men. Plus the usual stupid rants about "SJWs" (ie anyone whose views on women is to the left of Saudi Arabia's.)